CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Birutė Pranevičienė – Violeta Vasiliauskienė – Harald Scheu CYIL 12 (2021) freedom of movement of children. In a similar manner, the closure of businesses also had an impact e.g., on the employees’ freedom to go to their place of work. However, in these cases, the most relevant human rights are not the freedom of movement, but the right to education and the right to work respectively. The same is true regarding the prohibition to visit family members. Although this restriction is somehow linked to the freedom of movement, the major interference of such measure is with the right to family life and not with the freedom of movement. For the purpose of the foregoing study, we will only focus on those measures which directly affect the freedom of movement and not on measures for which a restriction of the freedom of movement is only a side effect that accompanies the restriction of other human rights. The freedom of movement is laid down in a number of universal and regional human rights provisions. These provisions mainly distinguish between an external dimension regarding the crossing of international borders and an internal dimension concerning travel inside the territory of a country. According to Article 13 of the UDHR everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state (para. 1) and everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country (para. 2). Whereas Article 13 of the UDHR does not regulate any specific restrictions on this right, 6 Article 12 of the ICCPR, after stipulating that everyone lawfully within the territory of a state shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence (para. 1) and that everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own (para. 2), 7 clarifies that the freedom of movement may be subject to restrictions which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant (para. 3). At the regional level, Article 2 of the Additional Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR contains the right of everyone lawfully within the territory of a state to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence within that territory (para. 1) and the right of everyone to freely leave any country, including their own (para. 2). According to the third paragraph of the cited provision, no restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such that are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of public order, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As for the internal dimension of freedom of movement, this right may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with the law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society (para. 4). Having regard to these legal standards, we will look at Lithuanian and Czech legal measures affecting both the internal and the external dimension of freedom of movement. Hereby, we will focus in particular on the closure of borders for various categories of persons, including citizens, quarantine measures prohibiting leaving municipalities and towns or restricting internal travel to a certain distance from home and other similar isolation measures.

6 See however the general limitation clause in Article 29 of the UDHR. 7 With regard to the external dimension of the freedom of movement, Article 12 para. 4 ICCPR says that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

230